In an affidavit filed in the Pretoria High Court on Thursday‚ the minister said this was the salary applicable to the position at the time of his appointment.

“His appointment letter (paragraph 3) thereof states that ( Letsoalo) was appointed as Acting Group CEO at the annualized salary package applicable to that position‚” she said in the affidavit.

The agency’s erstwhile board chaired by Popo Molefe swiftly fired Letsoalo following a Sunday Times report last month that he had demanded and was paid the amount‚ demanded a chauffeur-driven car and a company cell phone without board approval.

“What is worse‚ though‚ is that Mr Letsoalo never instructed anyone to pay him any specific amount. It is clear that he made inquiries of what his package was.

“After deliberations among various officials regarding his salary‚ to which he was not privy‚ he was paid R5 986 140. 07… incidentally‚ Dr Popo Molefe was copied in some e-mail deliberations among the officials and yet at no stage did he tell them that the board had to approve the salary‚ irrespective of the contents of the appointment letter‚” the minister said.

Peters said the allegation that Letsoalo was only entitled to be paid his basic salary at the transport department plus an additional 12% in line with clause 9.1.2.8 of the agency’s remuneration policy was incorrect.

She said this did not apply to Letsoalo since he was not a permanent appointee.

“…Mr Letsoalo also wrote to (Molefe) on 28 February 2017 in which I was copied. He repeated his version of events regarding his salary but also made allegations that he had refused to accede to Dr Molefe’s improper (request) that (Letsoalo) meets with potential suppliers and accept CVs of people recommended by Dr Molefe‚” she said.

Peters states that‚ while these allegations were untested‚ other allegations such as a refusal by Letsoalo to sign payments to Werkmans Attorneys were of grave concern.

“Werkmans has been paid R127 million for unending investigations whose scope is unclear and for amounts not budgeted for‚” she said.

Peters charged that‚ therefore‚ Molefe and his board were part of the problem of irregular expenditure instead of being part of the solution.